1. Field of the Invention
As an established standardized freight handling format, containerization has been proposed for vehicle transport and storage, for load handling convenience, security and protection.
The term vehicle, is primarily directed to motor cars, but in principle embraces other types such as vans, trucks, tractors and trailers, with or without on board cargo. For economic considerations of optimal utilization, cargo load configuration is carefully matched, to occupy the full internal container volume, allowing for some load handling and access clearance.
As to load capacity, containers are generally of standardised elongate rectangular form, in both plan, side and end elevation, to certain dimensions. This rectangular form does not readily lend itself to accommodate diverse curved vehicle profiles, without significant wasted space around vehicles.
Vehicles must be restrained and buffered, to inhibit inadvertent contact with the container structure, or other vehicles and consequent impact and abrasion damage to vulnerable body panels, in container (un)loading, handling and transit.
2. Description of Related Art
Already, some tens of thousands of vehicles (annually) are transported in containers. However, even though vehicle containerisation has been known and adopted for decades, important needs and considerations have not been met. Nevertheless, the challenge remains of using more of the millions of containers available worldwide. Moreover, millions of cars are presently shipped exposed, which could travel in containers.
Proposals have been made for containers with bespoke vehicle restraint, mounting or even mutual stacking frames. These have commonly included somewhat bulky intrusive, inflexible structures restricting volumetric capacity and payload. Vehicle stacking has hitherto adopted a simple tiered approach, requiring the combined height of vehicles to fit within a limited container height or depth. Moreover, the frames have limited the density, juxtaposition or proximity of vehicle packing and, by their inflexible form, have generally precluded a snug mutual profile interfit. As such, they are not intended or suitable for conversion of existing containers.
Practical issues also arise in (un)loading and accommodating operator access to and from vehicles once within container confines. Standard containers tend to be either 8′ 6″ high or 9′ 6″ high (externally). Their internal access apertures, through (end) door entrance frame are typically some 12 inches less; half taken up by the load bearing base, and half by a structured door header, located only at the door positions. Thus, problems have been encountered with maneuvering cars safely inside a container and fixing them securely in place. This has proved laborious and time consuming—reflecting the need to work in a confined area around a supporting framework to hold cars in place.
Typically there are two existing approaches to vehicle containerisation. In one approach, a vehicle is driven into a container and then a ramp framework assembled over it. The ramp is inclined at a relatively steep angle. A second vehicle is then driven up the inclined ramp—where it is lashed in situ. In practice, in order to lash an upper vehicle in place, an operator has to lean over an underlying bottom vehicle and framework. Thus, damage to the bottom car is a regular occurrence—making this approach unpopular. For a less steep ramp angle, greater ramp length, or span, for a given height is required. Thus, part of the ramp is temporarily extended beyond its shipping position. The ramp extension is then removed and a third car driven into the container along the floor and lashed in place. Another ramp is then assembled over it and a fourth car driven ‘precariously’ up the ramp and lashed in place. This is time-consuming and hazardous. Furthermore, the ramp extension now protrudes from the container end—possibly needing special support when in use.
The second common approach overcomes certain disadvantages of the first, by assembling vehicles, one above another upon a double-decked cassette. It is also known to assemble a vehicle support frame outside a container, giving room to work. Once vehicles are in place and lashed, the cargo or load module, or ‘cassette’ is lifted and pushed inside the container, where it is fastened internally. However, this requires operator skill in maneuvering combined weight of vehicles and cassette frame, typically with a forklift truck.
When discharging in either of these approaches, the cassette, or ramp, framework must be dismantled and/or withdrawn wholesale, before innermost vehicles can be pulled or driven out. Thus, if it is desired to discharge vehicles when the container is being carried say 1.2 meters above ground level—as, say, when carried on a trailer—the (un)loading becomes complicated, protracted and expensive—not least with provision of mechanised lifting devices to move ramp frames or cassettes. If vehicles are to be discharged at a dealer's premises in the centre of a town, such a procedure in the road with industrial fork trucks is impractical.
EP 0808780 Oglio teaches a dedicated container adaptation for vehicles, using an intrusive internal framework with upright side posts with guideways for support cables and locating rollers of a horizontal vehicle support platform. The platform is elevated for vehicle stacking and is of open profile between wheel ramps to allow intrusion of an underlying vehicle bonnet or hood. In practice one vehicle largely or completely overlies another. This assumes combined vehicle heights fit within the container depth—a consideration unlikely for contemporary tall vehicle forms, such as MPV's and 4WD's and family saloons. The framework intrudes significantly upon overall internal load capacity, and is somewhat inflexible in achieving optimum vehicle packing densities, through closer respective profile interfit.
Objective(s)
Ready vehicle (un)loading, without resorting to auxiliary lifting equipment, would be advantageous. Once known vehicle frames and cassettes are no longer needed, they have to be packed into another container for return-to-base and re-use—assuming parts are not lost, as is common, en route.
Retention of vehicle support frames within the same container being used for car transport would be advantageous—provided stowed out of the way of other general cargo. The loading angle of known ramps and cassettes is rather steep, for tight vehicle packing, yet keeping their overall height low enough to fit through the door height on an existing container precludes use of a internal roof head or ‘dead’ space.
Some means to motorise the ramp, so that the loading angle could be set low or even horizontal, yet once the vehicle is on board the ramp the angle varied, would be advantageous.
Other considerations include: An upper vehicle support frame affects the space available for the lower vehicle. If the support were clear of the bottom vehicle, working space for lashing and vehicle access could be much improved. If the support frame were motorized, energy requirements of existing vehicle carriers could be considered. These would have to lift both vehicle and support frame weight.
Road borne vehicle carriers have a prime mover able to generate considerable power, to satisfy such a need. A shipping container carries no such on-board power generator and, if needed, power would have to be supplied by a much less powerful source, such as batteries of a tractor unit, or manually. Means to reduce power requirements of a motorised frame would be advantageous.